has this ever happened to you?

No, I think it was something with the statue. I'm really not sure though... all I remember is watching her go into that fountain. Very nice people. One time she came out with a tip for me... a buffalo quarter or something? some kind of special coin. She and her husband had a MULTI million dollar estate AKA weekend home. Then of course they had like a 10+ mil apartment in the city. Loved working for them. This other lady... the one with the polesaw. Doesn't have anywhere near as much class. She's got plenty of money... but I believe there is a saying "Money can't buy class?"
 
[ QUOTE ]
guy

It's called a business.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that's true. However, as most reputable arborists would do, if a potential client asks for something, like topping, that isn't right, I'll attempt to educate them as to why it's bad, and offer alternatives. Works almost every time.

However, recently, I suggested topping about 10 of 25 mature firs, in a green belt, as an alternative to removal. (The rest will be removed to habitat snags.) The whole job is being done to alleviate hazards of the trees failing onto houses. By topping a few of these, and effectively creating living habitat trees, we will have kept a bit of greenery in the area. This contradicted what a consulting arborist told them, but this guy is very unethical. he will condemn a tree without even seeing it. Scott Baker knows of whom I speak, and feels the guy should be run outta town on a rail. He's even an ASCA member. Scott also agreed with my recommendations on this job.

This is pretty much what I do now, when working in NGPA's (Native Growth Protection Areas) Last spring, I topped a couple douglas firs, as thinning wouldn't have reduced enough sail area. Those two still could fail onto houses, but have thin canopies left, so that is unlikely. Of course, they will need to be monitored, and retopped or removed in a few years. Reality is, these two trees weren't that bad, but the nearby homeowners were concerned, and the [censored]'n mgr wants them to feel comfortable.
 
[ QUOTE ]
his contradicted what a consulting arborist told them, but this guy is very unethical. he will condemn a tree without even seeing it.

[/ QUOTE ]Brutal pruning only wrecks one tree at a time, but brutal consulting is much more efficient at destruction. There is a sinister subset of Kevorkian consultants on the loose(you can hear one at expo this year), preaching the crazy creed that condemning every tree is good practice management because it reduces professional liability--and it may provide a steadier income than competent work that follows the org's excellent ethics statement, which mandates objectivity and competence.
cool.gif


imho this condemning approach is fostered by the ethics of the management. Last I checked that org had no Mission and no Values statement to guide them, so the creed of greed followed by the managing entity filters down into that vacuum. That org will have more credibility when members find and define their values for themselves.

Whoa sorry for the rant. Making wildlife snags in a semirural area like Roger did is an easier decision than hard reduction/topping of a white pine alongside a house, but still I was wrong to condemn hl for that without being there.

As for painting wounds for cosmetic reasons when client goals call for it, or to stop insects that carry stuff like oak wilt, following ANSI 5.4.2 is better than any dogmatic taboo.
wink.gif
 
Remove to remove risk and professional liability, one of the main reasons the "profession" of arboriculture is in the dark ages. The vast majority of tree people (not arborists) are so bound and determined to remove every tree they can (to pay for expensive trucks and chippers?) or make a tree nice and orderly by removing deadwood, crossed limbs etc. that it gives the thinking person a bad name. Wildlife snags are an excellent example of a wider approach to arboriculture (environmental arboriculutre in some regions), but are likely to be called incorrect pruning and hazards by the majority of tree people.

There is excellent information from other professions (and even within the arboriculutre consulting community) concerning ecology, tree preservation and risk and management but we persist on teaching that trees are inheriently hazardous, deadwood is bad, climbing is everything, and there is only one way to consider trees.
 
[ QUOTE ]

There is excellent information from other professions (and even within the arboriculutre consulting community) concerning ecology, tree preservation and risk and management but we persist on teaching that trees are inheriently hazardous, deadwood is bad, climbing is everything, and there is only one way to consider trees.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am having a hard time figuring out where you are going with this statement mrtree? Maybe you could elaborate?

jp
grin.gif
 
Let's see in this thread we have had somebody top trees, the immediate response is that topping is bad. Roger Barnett has shown us an example where topping is okay, the creation of wildlife habitat.

The point is that the majority of arboriculture teaches one set of values and everything else is wrong. There is excellent information about trees from physics, ecology etc. that we essentially do not incorporate into arboriculture (in North America) because you can now take a multiple choice test after running a chainsaw for a couple of years, call yourself an arborist, consult and never have to learn anymore.

I have a huge problem with the approach that topping is bad, trees are dangerous and we need to remove everything. This is the arboriculture world I see, one script to read from. I expect that this view will not sit well, sO start the bad mouthing, I am sure their will be lots who don't like my take.
 
has anyone else out there besides scott baker heard of neville fay? he's a british arborist who's done quite a bit of work with ancient trees on public land, mostly in england. his pov on topping, reduction, deadwood, hazard, "over"-maturity etc is so different from what i've been taught and have practiced that i 'm still sorting out in my head the implications after a one day seminar 6+ months ago.

check this site out, and surf around a bit - lots of cool stuff:
http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/ancient-tree-forum/atfresources/bibliography.htm
 
I like the ancient tree forum's work, up to the point where they initiate decay to foster habitat for decay-loving organisms with "coronet cuts" etc. not arborcentric enough for my values, but they do widen the perspective on trees and tree work, which is a good thing.
 
this thread is great, might make some pop corn to read what comes up next, will guy lash out more, will hi tree actually get an answer for the question he asked or will he continue to be verbally beaten to death? its a cliff hanger!! i honestly dont see a reason everyone needs to freak out on each other, cant we all just get along or at least pretend to for three sentences?
 
Why does everything have to be arborcentric? Can trees not exist to support oraganism rather than exist only for their aesthetic value to man? This is what Neville Fay's (and others) work is about. An excellent example of combining ecology into arboriculture.
 
I would say every single arborist should have read the works presented in Neville's Website (www.treeworks.uk.co) and the Ancient Tree Forum. These are basic papers that are a must for everybody.
 
its not often you find someone say that everyone HAS to read something, consider it being investigated though mrtree, your passion for the mans work has shown me the light (well, the website address helped out alot as well) thanks

ps, in no way shape or form am i being sarcastic, dont wanna sound like im mocking ya, this thread has seen enough zings.
 
I find the most interesting thing is that the concepts are so different than arboriculture taught in North America. There is major thinking, reading, comprehension and intergration of ideas in the Ancient Tree Forum and Treeworks. Our NA ideas about deadwood, topping (wether you call it reduction or whatever), proper tree care etc., are so ingrained and rudimentary it is no wonder that this is a third rate profession. When you look at a mature tree, about to enter the vetern phase and become important wildlife (and lower organisms) habitat, this is the exact point where we cut things down because they are a hazard; the real reason we cut them down is that for a century we have known nothing else, we think nothing else and now we have big trucks, chippers and saws to use and pay for. We denigrate the thinking consultant (just check other threads that indicate only a climber is an arborist) and know the only option is to remove the offending tree.
 
Oh and there are lots of other interesting resources out there. Look up all the canopy research, wildlife habitat research, soil science, mycology, etc. that could be applied to arboriculture, but we choose not to even read because we are arborist who have passed ISA certification and that is it, the gold standard reached, or we have equipment payments to be made that can only be made by lots and lots of (unnecessary) tree removals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom